Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90234 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 8498 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2016 20:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jan 2016 20:43:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=francois@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=francois@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 212.27.42.2 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: francois@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 212.27.42.2 smtp2-g21.free.fr Received: from [212.27.42.2] ([212.27.42.2:64245] helo=smtp2-g21.free.fr) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2D/00-21755-D6C7D865 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:43:26 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [82.240.16.115]) (Authenticated sender: flaupretre@free.fr) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98D894B01DB; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:42:20 +0100 (CET) To: Ryan Pallas , "Paul M. Jones" References: <66E04ACF-7363-4E47-BFFD-E380E5B1EA23@gmail.com> <6D.39.21755.3576D865@pb1.pair.com> <1AD1B991-A3E5-4D6C-A532-5F0FCCC2ED61@gmail.com> Cc: Andrea Faulds , "internals@lists.php.net" Message-ID: <568D7C5D.9020405@php.net> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 21:43:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 160106-0, 06/01/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Draft] Adopt Code of Conduct From: francois@php.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Laupretre?=) Le 06/01/2016 20:38, Ryan Pallas a écrit : > > I agree, a conflict resolution document *and team* seems infinitely better. > This team's job is to resolve things quietly and without further incident, > however if action may be required - its an open vote (as previously > suggested). Agreed. 'Don't be evil' is sufficient as a CoC. Anything we add to this will be redundant, ambiguous, and subject to interpretations. A small set of conflict resolution rules and a team of community-approved mediators is everything we need, IMHO. Regards François